The most talked about inconsequential trade?

[GC003332]

I think it would interesting if one were to ask the followers of this particular thread, which franchise they want to win more games this season, the Lakers or the Nets?
As a Celtics fan i would like for the Lakers to win more as to increase the lottery odds for the Brooklyn pick assuming they both miss the playoffs.

70 plus games to see it all unfold , should be fun to see how it plays out.

[LarBrd33]

I think it would interesting if one were to ask the followers of this particular thread, which franchise they want to win more games this season, the Lakers or the Nets?
As a Celtics fan i would like for the Lakers to win more as to increase the lottery odds for the Brooklyn pick assuming they both miss the playoffs.

70 plus games to see it all unfold , should be fun to see how it plays out.

Well yeah, obviously.  Lakers aren't winning a title this year.  Would much rather have the Lakers win more games than the Nets... both because we own the Nets pick and because I don't want to see an already loaded future dynasty 76ers roster add another Top 5 pick.   Here's hoping Lakers sneak into the playoffs and the mid-1st Philly gets ends up a bust.

[tazzmaniac]

I think it would interesting if one were to ask the followers of this particular thread, which franchise they want to win more games this season, the Lakers or the Nets?
As a Celtics fan i would like for the Lakers to win more as to increase the lottery odds for the Brooklyn pick assuming they both miss the playoffs.

70 plus games to see it all unfold , should be fun to see how it plays out.

Obviously want the Lakers to win more than the Nets but I still want the Lakers to be bad.  I don't want the Lakers to sniff the playoffs because that might help them attract free agents.  I definitely want their pick to be outside the top 3 because that means they'll lose their 2019 1st to Orlando rather than a couple of 2nds. 

[tazzmaniac]

You guys are so defensive about Philly it is ridiculous. Nobody is saying it wasn't a solid deal for philly. The point was that for 3 years we, and other basketball fans talked about his trade. It now appears to be a mid first round pick for a backup point guard that we discussed for 3 years. If you can't see why that is kind of funny just move along and we will agree it was a fascinating deal that we can discuss for 100 years

It won't be a mid 1st round pick if it transfers this year.

The whole premise of the thread is that the lakers look like they have a legit shot at the last playoff seed out west. If they get that, it would be a mid first round pick? What is wrong with you?

they won't make the playoffs though, so basically this thread is pointless and just another jab your taking at Philly.

How in the world is me saying they won a trade but it looks like a less epic trade because MCW has fallen off a cliff and the lakes rebuild is ahead a schedule a jab at philly? You really come up with some insane stuff moranis. For the record I love embiid. I am pretty excited to see Simmons. I actually think Holmes could be a surprise players. I probably like Noel more than most. I'm probably one of the more pro philly people on this board. (I'll admit I don't like okafor as those that view him as a future star, but neither do a lot of their fans)

I don't recall anyone ever claiming it was an epic trade.  An epic trade would involve at least one star caliber player which MCW most certainly was not.  The argument from the beginning was the Sixers getting the lightly protected Lakers 1st for MCW was a great return because MCW just wasn't very good.  MCW falling off a cliff and getting traded for Snell ends any debate about that.  Its just a matter of seeing how good the pick ends up being.

you are kind of getting into semantics at this point. Perhaps you did not ever think MCW was a good player with a chance at stardom, but many people did think that. I think he had a triple double his first or second game, averaged something like 16-5-5 as a rookie and seemed to have a lot of physical tools as a giant point guard with great length. I'll be honest and admit I definitely though he could have star potential. It is hard to remember my exact thinking at the time. Now that thinking looks kind of silly, but pretending it never existed is kind of revionost history. Again, for both you and moranis it is unclear what you are trying to argue and argue so vehemently. It kind of seems like you are fighting an invisible monster here and/or just want to argue. Saying this trade, barring lottery magic, turned out to be less of a blockbuster than originally thought isn't really a debatable point.

If GMs thought MCW had star potential, he would have gone much higher than 11th in a weak draft.  Hinkie tried to trade MCW during the draft after his 1st season but couldn't get a good enough offer.  The MCW trade was a classic sell high trade of an overrated player on a bad team.  Never saw anyone claim it was an epic or blockbuster trade at any time.  Just a good return for a player that the Sixers didn't want. 

It has actually worked out well for the Sixers that they'll most likely get the pick in the 2017 draft which is projected to be strong and deep.  They had 3 1st rounders in the weaker 2016 draft so they didn't need another one. 

[celticsclay]

You guys are so defensive about Philly it is ridiculous. Nobody is saying it wasn't a solid deal for philly. The point was that for 3 years we, and other basketball fans talked about his trade. It now appears to be a mid first round pick for a backup point guard that we discussed for 3 years. If you can't see why that is kind of funny just move along and we will agree it was a fascinating deal that we can discuss for 100 years

It won't be a mid 1st round pick if it transfers this year.

The whole premise of the thread is that the lakers look like they have a legit shot at the last playoff seed out west. If they get that, it would be a mid first round pick? What is wrong with you?

they won't make the playoffs though, so basically this thread is pointless and just another jab your taking at Philly.

How in the world is me saying they won a trade but it looks like a less epic trade because MCW has fallen off a cliff and the lakes rebuild is ahead a schedule a jab at philly? You really come up with some insane stuff moranis. For the record I love embiid. I am pretty excited to see Simmons. I actually think Holmes could be a surprise players. I probably like Noel more than most. I'm probably one of the more pro philly people on this board. (I'll admit I don't like okafor as those that view him as a future star, but neither do a lot of their fans)

I don't recall anyone ever claiming it was an epic trade.  An epic trade would involve at least one star caliber player which MCW most certainly was not.  The argument from the beginning was the Sixers getting the lightly protected Lakers 1st for MCW was a great return because MCW just wasn't very good.  MCW falling off a cliff and getting traded for Snell ends any debate about that.  Its just a matter of seeing how good the pick ends up being.

you are kind of getting into semantics at this point. Perhaps you did not ever think MCW was a good player with a chance at stardom, but many people did think that. I think he had a triple double his first or second game, averaged something like 16-5-5 as a rookie and seemed to have a lot of physical tools as a giant point guard with great length. I'll be honest and admit I definitely though he could have star potential. It is hard to remember my exact thinking at the time. Now that thinking looks kind of silly, but pretending it never existed is kind of revionost history. Again, for both you and moranis it is unclear what you are trying to argue and argue so vehemently. It kind of seems like you are fighting an invisible monster here and/or just want to argue. Saying this trade, barring lottery magic, turned out to be less of a blockbuster than originally thought isn't really a debatable point.

If GMs thought MCW had star potential, he would have gone much higher than 11th in a weak draft.  Hinkie tried to trade MCW during the draft after his 1st season but couldn't get a good enough offer.  The MCW trade was a classic sell high trade of an overrated player on a bad team.  Never saw anyone claim it was an epic or blockbuster trade at any time.  Just a good return for a player that the Sixers didn't want. 

It has actually worked out well for the Sixers that they'll most likely get the pick in the 2017 draft which is projected to be strong and deep.  They had 3 1st rounders in the weaker 2016 draft so they didn't need another one.

Again acting like this was not a trade people talked about and were extremely excited about it just kind of foolish. If MCW was just viewed as a future backup point guard there wouldn't be any of these articles or quotes. How many people do you think analyzed the Jerrid Bayless trade years later?

"almost a year ago to the day, the move that ESPN.com writer Brian Windhorst recently called “The Great Point Guard Trade of 2015”

http://www.phillyvoice.com/one-year-later-looking-back-michael-carter-williams-trade/

Sports Illustrated called it a "mega deal"

http://www.si.com/nba/2015/02/19/nba-trade-deadline-brandon-knight-michael-carter-williams-suns-bucks-sixers

"Why did the 76ers trade two of their future stars"
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/20/why-did-the-rebuilding-philadelphia-76ers-trade-two-of-their-future-stars

The notoriously reclusive Hinkie also sat down for an interview to discuss these trades and said the following

"Michael kind exploded on his introduction into the NBA with that steal and dunk to start against Miami.

"From that moment, people have called and assumed we might move him and assumed that maybe they could get their hands on him. We said the same thing every time - we're not interested in moving him. We like him."

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/20150222_Hinkie_shares_reasons_for_MCW__K_J__trades__ideas_for_Sixers__future.html

Look for whatever reason you want to try and throw some cold water on this thread and/or act like I am the only one that thought it was a big trade at the time. This is clearly not the case and if I wanted I could also find lots of articles discussing MCW as a future star during his rookie year and the first part of his second year. At the end of the day, it is a pretty interesting interest topic to think about trades everyone was excited about that ended up being a lot less of a big deal in reality.

I think other posters have added some nice ideas to this thread like our own deal for Vin Baker. Or revisiting the blockbuster Carmelo deal that may have really ended up screwing both teams. In my humble opinion It would make for a better thread with more of that kind of commentary than being super overly defensive about the discussion because it happens to include Philly.

[Moranis]

The difference with those trades and this one, is this one isn't complete yet.  You've based this entire thread on the premise that LA makes the playoffs this year, which most people do not actually believe will happen.  You are also ignoring that it was a 3 team trade with Brandon Knight and Kendall Marshall going to Phoenix and Miles Plumlee, Tyler Ennis, and MCW going to the Bucks.  The fact that Brandon Knight was involved absolutely takes this out of an inconsequential trade, because Milwaukee got a lot worse post-trade (changing that franchise's entire course) and Knight has shown great promise in Phoenix (well at least until this year when he has been awful).  Heck even Plumlee has started 8 or the 9 games he played for Milwaukee this season.   

[celticsclay]

The difference with those trades and this one, is this one isn't complete yet.  You've based this entire thread on the premise that LA makes the playoffs this year, which most people do not actually believe will happen.  You are also ignoring that it was a 3 team trade with Brandon Knight and Kendall Marshall going to Phoenix and Miles Plumlee, Tyler Ennis, and MCW going to the Bucks.  The fact that Brandon Knight was involved absolutely takes this out of an inconsequential trade, because Milwaukee got a lot worse post-trade (changing that franchise's entire course) and Knight has shown great promise in Phoenix (well at least until this year when he has been awful).  Heck even Plumlee has started 8 or the 9 games he played for Milwaukee this season.   

There was a thread made about who was the early frontrunner for mvp after 7 games
There was a thread a thread about the rookie class being potentially historically bad after 9 games (which I myself said was kind of silly)
I made a thread myself about overreactions from opening night or opening week and what people's 5 biggest ones where
There is a thread about the Brow being way more likely to demand a trade because the Pels are 1-7 or whatever

I don't see you in every one of those threads stomping around and saying people can't discuss them because they are not complete, or whatever you are trying to do here. You don't think the Lakers will make the playoffs? Fine, say it and why and move along. Coming in with bizarre comments like the "twolves have 6 players on their second contract" or 'this is just a jab at philly"
doesn't add anything to the discussion.

[Moranis]

The difference with those trades and this one, is this one isn't complete yet.  You've based this entire thread on the premise that LA makes the playoffs this year, which most people do not actually believe will happen.  You are also ignoring that it was a 3 team trade with Brandon Knight and Kendall Marshall going to Phoenix and Miles Plumlee, Tyler Ennis, and MCW going to the Bucks.  The fact that Brandon Knight was involved absolutely takes this out of an inconsequential trade, because Milwaukee got a lot worse post-trade (changing that franchise's entire course) and Knight has shown great promise in Phoenix (well at least until this year when he has been awful).  Heck even Plumlee has started 8 or the 9 games he played for Milwaukee this season.   

There was a thread made about who was the early frontrunner for mvp after 7 games
There was a thread a thread about the rookie class being potentially historically bad after 9 games (which I myself said was kind of silly)
I made a thread myself about overreactions from opening night or opening week and what people's 5 biggest ones where
There is a thread about the Brow being way more likely to demand a trade because the Pels are 1-7 or whatever

I don't see you in every one of those threads stomping around and saying people can't discuss them because they are not complete, or whatever you are trying to do here. You don't think the Lakers will make the playoffs? Fine, say it and why and move along. Coming in with bizarre comments like the "twolves have 6 players on their second contract" or 'this is just a jab at philly"
doesn't add anything to the discussion.

when did I say you couldn't make this thread?  My point was merely you were basing it off of something that isn't likely to happen and completely ignored significant parts of the trade.  Phoenix didn't give up the Lakers pick for MCW, they gave up the Lakers pick for Brandon Knight and Kendall Marshall.  Milwaukee gave up Knight for MWC, Plumlee, and Ennis.  This wasn't just a straight trade of MCW for Lakers pick.  The other parts of the trade should be accounted for in your analysis.

[tazzmaniac]

You guys are so defensive about Philly it is ridiculous. Nobody is saying it wasn't a solid deal for philly. The point was that for 3 years we, and other basketball fans talked about his trade. It now appears to be a mid first round pick for a backup point guard that we discussed for 3 years. If you can't see why that is kind of funny just move along and we will agree it was a fascinating deal that we can discuss for 100 years

It won't be a mid 1st round pick if it transfers this year.

The whole premise of the thread is that the lakers look like they have a legit shot at the last playoff seed out west. If they get that, it would be a mid first round pick? What is wrong with you?

they won't make the playoffs though, so basically this thread is pointless and just another jab your taking at Philly.

How in the world is me saying they won a trade but it looks like a less epic trade because MCW has fallen off a cliff and the lakes rebuild is ahead a schedule a jab at philly? You really come up with some insane stuff moranis. For the record I love embiid. I am pretty excited to see Simmons. I actually think Holmes could be a surprise players. I probably like Noel more than most. I'm probably one of the more pro philly people on this board. (I'll admit I don't like okafor as those that view him as a future star, but neither do a lot of their fans)

I don't recall anyone ever claiming it was an epic trade.  An epic trade would involve at least one star caliber player which MCW most certainly was not.  The argument from the beginning was the Sixers getting the lightly protected Lakers 1st for MCW was a great return because MCW just wasn't very good.  MCW falling off a cliff and getting traded for Snell ends any debate about that.  Its just a matter of seeing how good the pick ends up being.

you are kind of getting into semantics at this point. Perhaps you did not ever think MCW was a good player with a chance at stardom, but many people did think that. I think he had a triple double his first or second game, averaged something like 16-5-5 as a rookie and seemed to have a lot of physical tools as a giant point guard with great length. I'll be honest and admit I definitely though he could have star potential. It is hard to remember my exact thinking at the time. Now that thinking looks kind of silly, but pretending it never existed is kind of revionost history. Again, for both you and moranis it is unclear what you are trying to argue and argue so vehemently. It kind of seems like you are fighting an invisible monster here and/or just want to argue. Saying this trade, barring lottery magic, turned out to be less of a blockbuster than originally thought isn't really a debatable point.

If GMs thought MCW had star potential, he would have gone much higher than 11th in a weak draft.  Hinkie tried to trade MCW during the draft after his 1st season but couldn't get a good enough offer.  The MCW trade was a classic sell high trade of an overrated player on a bad team.  Never saw anyone claim it was an epic or blockbuster trade at any time.  Just a good return for a player that the Sixers didn't want. 

It has actually worked out well for the Sixers that they'll most likely get the pick in the 2017 draft which is projected to be strong and deep.  They had 3 1st rounders in the weaker 2016 draft so they didn't need another one.

Again acting like this was not a trade people talked about and were extremely excited about it just kind of foolish. If MCW was just viewed as a future backup point guard there wouldn't be any of these articles or quotes. How many people do you think analyzed the Jerrid Bayless trade years later?

"almost a year ago to the day, the move that ESPN.com writer Brian Windhorst recently called “The Great Point Guard Trade of 2015”

http://www.phillyvoice.com/one-year-later-looking-back-michael-carter-williams-trade/

Sports Illustrated called it a "mega deal"

http://www.si.com/nba/2015/02/19/nba-trade-deadline-brandon-knight-michael-carter-williams-suns-bucks-sixers

"Why did the 76ers trade two of their future stars"
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/20/why-did-the-rebuilding-philadelphia-76ers-trade-two-of-their-future-stars

The notoriously reclusive Hinkie also sat down for an interview to discuss these trades and said the following

"Michael kind exploded on his introduction into the NBA with that steal and dunk to start against Miami.

"From that moment, people have called and assumed we might move him and assumed that maybe they could get their hands on him. We said the same thing every time - we're not interested in moving him. We like him."

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/20150222_Hinkie_shares_reasons_for_MCW__K_J__trades__ideas_for_Sixers__future.html

Look for whatever reason you want to try and throw some cold water on this thread and/or act like I am the only one that thought it was a big trade at the time. This is clearly not the case and if I wanted I could also find lots of articles discussing MCW as a future star during his rookie year and the first part of his second year. At the end of the day, it is a pretty interesting interest topic to think about trades everyone was excited about that ended up being a lot less of a big deal in reality.

I think other posters have added some nice ideas to this thread like our own deal for Vin Baker. Or revisiting the blockbuster Carmelo deal that may have really ended up screwing both teams. In my humble opinion It would make for a better thread with more of that kind of commentary than being super overly defensive about the discussion because it happens to include Philly.

Your initial post was all about MCW and the Lakers pick not the trade as a whole.  You didn't mention Brandon Knight and the Suns.  You also projected the Sixers getting the 16th pick which is pretty much the worst outcome for the Sixers.  It is possible you could be right and the trade turns out to be inconsequential.  It is also possible that the Sixers could get a great player with the pick.  Just thinks it makes sense to see how it plays out. 

As for MCW, the Sports Illustrated article you referenced gave the Sixers an A for the trade and said MCW's star potential was pretty limited.  I wouldn't put much stock in what Hinkie said in an interview.  Hinkie tried to trade MCW during the 2014 draft and ended up trading him a half year later.  You don't trade a rookie 1.5 years into his career for a future draft pick if you think the rookie has star potential.  Especially since "the process" was all about getting star(s).   Hinkie even stated in the article that it was very unlikely that the pick would convey for the 2015 draft.  So he knew he was trading MCW for a 2016 pick at the earliest. 

As for other trades, the Howard Bynum 4 team trade certainly didn't work out well.  I'd say it was pretty inconsequential for all the hype except for the negative impact on the Sixers leading to Hinkie and "the process".   

[celticsclay]

You guys are so defensive about Philly it is ridiculous. Nobody is saying it wasn't a solid deal for philly. The point was that for 3 years we, and other basketball fans talked about his trade. It now appears to be a mid first round pick for a backup point guard that we discussed for 3 years. If you can't see why that is kind of funny just move along and we will agree it was a fascinating deal that we can discuss for 100 years

It won't be a mid 1st round pick if it transfers this year.

The whole premise of the thread is that the lakers look like they have a legit shot at the last playoff seed out west. If they get that, it would be a mid first round pick? What is wrong with you?

they won't make the playoffs though, so basically this thread is pointless and just another jab your taking at Philly.

How in the world is me saying they won a trade but it looks like a less epic trade because MCW has fallen off a cliff and the lakes rebuild is ahead a schedule a jab at philly? You really come up with some insane stuff moranis. For the record I love embiid. I am pretty excited to see Simmons. I actually think Holmes could be a surprise players. I probably like Noel more than most. I'm probably one of the more pro philly people on this board. (I'll admit I don't like okafor as those that view him as a future star, but neither do a lot of their fans)

I don't recall anyone ever claiming it was an epic trade.  An epic trade would involve at least one star caliber player which MCW most certainly was not.  The argument from the beginning was the Sixers getting the lightly protected Lakers 1st for MCW was a great return because MCW just wasn't very good.  MCW falling off a cliff and getting traded for Snell ends any debate about that.  Its just a matter of seeing how good the pick ends up being.

you are kind of getting into semantics at this point. Perhaps you did not ever think MCW was a good player with a chance at stardom, but many people did think that. I think he had a triple double his first or second game, averaged something like 16-5-5 as a rookie and seemed to have a lot of physical tools as a giant point guard with great length. I'll be honest and admit I definitely though he could have star potential. It is hard to remember my exact thinking at the time. Now that thinking looks kind of silly, but pretending it never existed is kind of revionost history. Again, for both you and moranis it is unclear what you are trying to argue and argue so vehemently. It kind of seems like you are fighting an invisible monster here and/or just want to argue. Saying this trade, barring lottery magic, turned out to be less of a blockbuster than originally thought isn't really a debatable point.

If GMs thought MCW had star potential, he would have gone much higher than 11th in a weak draft.  Hinkie tried to trade MCW during the draft after his 1st season but couldn't get a good enough offer.  The MCW trade was a classic sell high trade of an overrated player on a bad team.  Never saw anyone claim it was an epic or blockbuster trade at any time.  Just a good return for a player that the Sixers didn't want. 

It has actually worked out well for the Sixers that they'll most likely get the pick in the 2017 draft which is projected to be strong and deep.  They had 3 1st rounders in the weaker 2016 draft so they didn't need another one.

Again acting like this was not a trade people talked about and were extremely excited about it just kind of foolish. If MCW was just viewed as a future backup point guard there wouldn't be any of these articles or quotes. How many people do you think analyzed the Jerrid Bayless trade years later?

"almost a year ago to the day, the move that ESPN.com writer Brian Windhorst recently called “The Great Point Guard Trade of 2015”

http://www.phillyvoice.com/one-year-later-looking-back-michael-carter-williams-trade/

Sports Illustrated called it a "mega deal"

http://www.si.com/nba/2015/02/19/nba-trade-deadline-brandon-knight-michael-carter-williams-suns-bucks-sixers

"Why did the 76ers trade two of their future stars"
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/20/why-did-the-rebuilding-philadelphia-76ers-trade-two-of-their-future-stars

The notoriously reclusive Hinkie also sat down for an interview to discuss these trades and said the following

"Michael kind exploded on his introduction into the NBA with that steal and dunk to start against Miami.

"From that moment, people have called and assumed we might move him and assumed that maybe they could get their hands on him. We said the same thing every time - we're not interested in moving him. We like him."

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/20150222_Hinkie_shares_reasons_for_MCW__K_J__trades__ideas_for_Sixers__future.html

Look for whatever reason you want to try and throw some cold water on this thread and/or act like I am the only one that thought it was a big trade at the time. This is clearly not the case and if I wanted I could also find lots of articles discussing MCW as a future star during his rookie year and the first part of his second year. At the end of the day, it is a pretty interesting interest topic to think about trades everyone was excited about that ended up being a lot less of a big deal in reality.

I think other posters have added some nice ideas to this thread like our own deal for Vin Baker. Or revisiting the blockbuster Carmelo deal that may have really ended up screwing both teams. In my humble opinion It would make for a better thread with more of that kind of commentary than being super overly defensive about the discussion because it happens to include Philly.

Your initial post was all about MCW and the Lakers pick not the trade as a whole.  You didn't mention Brandon Knight and the Suns.  You also projected the Sixers getting the 16th pick which is pretty much the worst outcome for the Sixers.  It is possible you could be right and the trade turns out to be inconsequential.  It is also possible that the Sixers could get a great player with the pick.  Just thinks it makes sense to see how it plays out. 

As for MCW, the Sports Illustrated article you referenced gave the Sixers an A for the trade and said MCW's star potential was pretty limited.  I wouldn't put much stock in what Hinkie said in an interview.  Hinkie tried to trade MCW during the 2014 draft and ended up trading him a half year later.  You don't trade a rookie 1.5 years into his career for a future draft pick if you think the rookie has star potential.  Especially since "the process" was all about getting star(s).   Hinkie even stated in the article that it was very unlikely that the pick would convey for the 2015 draft.  So he knew he was trading MCW for a 2016 pick at the earliest. 

As for other trades, the Howard Bynum 4 team trade certainly didn't work out well.  I'd say it was pretty inconsequential for all the hype except for the negative impact on the Sixers leading to Hinkie and "the process".   

The Howard, Bynum Iggy blockbuster is actually a really good example of a trade that didn't have as big an impact on teams as initially thought. Of the teams in that contract it seems like Denver and Iggy were the biggest impact as they surprised the league by going 57-25 with him leading the way.

That team seemed like they were quite good and quite balanced, but lost a very painful close 6 game series to the Warriors. In game 3 they blew a 12 point halftime lead and lost by 2. Game 6 they missed 2 chances to tie it in the 4th with about 10 seconds left.

Funny to think about how much that series may have impacted the flow of the NBA moving forward. If the nuggets win that series does Karl get fired? Does Iggy still leave to join the Warriors? Does a first round loss for the Warriors prompt them to keep moving forward with Klay Thompson, Green and Curry?

Ill add these conversations are a lot more fun with actual contributions rather than just trying to tear down a premise or hate on an idea.

[tazzmaniac]

Halfway through the season and no clarity on the Lakers pick going to the Sixers.  At 15-26 and the 7th worst record in the league, the Lakers should be well out of the playoffs.  Instead they are only 2 games from the 8th seed.  They're also 2.5 games out of 3rd worst record and a good possibility of keeping their 17 pick and losing their unprotected 18 pick to the Sixers.  Still think NOP should get the 8th seed but this could go down to the wire. 

[greece66]

@celticsclay

Nice post.

With hindsight, I don't like this trade for Philly. Not only because it is very likely that they will get less than they had hoped for, but mainly because there is a limit to how much you can compromise your present in search for future assets. Prolonging extreme tanking over four (and counting) seasons is counterproductive. MCW (and KJ) might not be great, but he would have been better than McConnell. They also lost in chemistry by trading him. Let alone further alienating their fans. Finally, note that both MCW and KJ were playing quite well before being traded.
In retrospect, the MCW + KJ trade made it clear that Hinkie intended to continue making high risk/high reward trades (starting with Jrue Holiday in 2013), and contributed to his demise.
Overall, I think that Philly the tanking factory made sense in the first two, maybe three seasons, but they would have been better off if they had stopped the extreme tanking in the summer of 2016 and got a couple of decent guards (granted Bayless got injured, but he wasn't a great option for PG to start with. And Simmons playing at PG in his first rookie year had tanking written all over it).
Even with a couple of better guards, they would still be a lottery team anyway, and it would have been better for developing their young talents. There wasn't much to lose by not tanking to the extreme this season. I don't think they will get anywhere, unless they accept they will have to go through an intermediary phase in their rebuilding being a ca. 30 win team (like LAL this season).
Speaking from an egoistic POV, it's good for the C's that a historically good franchise is stuck in this situation; the longer the Colangelos stay the better for us.

[tazzmaniac]

@celticsclay

Nice post.

With hindsight, I don't like this trade for Philly. Not only because it is very likely that they will get less than they had hoped for, but mainly because there is a limit to how much you can compromise your present in search for future assets. Prolonging extreme tanking over four (and counting) seasons is counterproductive. MCW (and KJ) might not be great, but he would have been better than McConnell. They also lost in chemistry by trading him. Let alone further alienating their fans. Finally, note that both MCW and KJ were playing quite well before being traded.
In retrospect, the MCW + KJ trade made it clear that Hinkie intended to continue making high risk/high reward trades (starting with Jrue Holiday in 2013), and contributed to his demise.
Overall, I think that Philly the tanking factory made sense in the first two, maybe three seasons, but they would have been better off if they had stopped the extreme tanking in the summer of 2016 and got a couple of decent guards (granted Bayless got injured, but he wasn't a great option for PG to start with. And Simmons playing at PG in his first rookie year had tanking written all over it).
Even with a couple of better guards, they would still be a lottery team anyway, and it would have been better for developing their young talents. There wasn't much to lose by not tanking to the extreme this season. I don't think they will get anywhere, unless they accept they will have to go through an intermediary phase in their rebuilding being a ca. 30 win team (like LAL this season).
Speaking from an egoistic POV, it's good for the C's that a historically good franchise is stuck in this situation; the longer the Colangelos stay the better for us.

Hinkie was the GM for only three seasons being hired after the 2013 season so they only tanked three seasons.  Hinkie traded MCW in the middle of the 2nd tank season for a good 1st round pick while his value was still high.  How good is still to be determined.  The Bucks tried to get MCW to work with Giannis but couldn't because MCW can't shoot.  After shopping MCW, the Bucks could only get Snell in return.  The same problem would have existed with Simmons and MCW.   Also note MCW is about to become an RFA and any of the top 5 PGs in this draft project better than MCW.  To sum it up, Lakers 1st >>>>  Snell >>  Keeping MCW

As for McDaniels, into his 3rd season with Houston he has yet to play meaningful minutes.  Neither MCW or McDaniels are good enough to be meaningful in a rebuild situation. 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/executives/hinkisa99x.html 

[MBunge]

@celticsclay

Nice post.

With hindsight, I don't like this trade for Philly. Not only because it is very likely that they will get less than they had hoped for, but mainly because there is a limit to how much you can compromise your present in search for future assets. Prolonging extreme tanking over four (and counting) seasons is counterproductive. MCW (and KJ) might not be great, but he would have been better than McConnell. They also lost in chemistry by trading him. Let alone further alienating their fans. Finally, note that both MCW and KJ were playing quite well before being traded.
In retrospect, the MCW + KJ trade made it clear that Hinkie intended to continue making high risk/high reward trades (starting with Jrue Holiday in 2013), and contributed to his demise.
Overall, I think that Philly the tanking factory made sense in the first two, maybe three seasons, but they would have been better off if they had stopped the extreme tanking in the summer of 2016 and got a couple of decent guards (granted Bayless got injured, but he wasn't a great option for PG to start with. And Simmons playing at PG in his first rookie year had tanking written all over it).
Even with a couple of better guards, they would still be a lottery team anyway, and it would have been better for developing their young talents. There wasn't much to lose by not tanking to the extreme this season. I don't think they will get anywhere, unless they accept they will have to go through an intermediary phase in their rebuilding being a ca. 30 win team (like LAL this season).
Speaking from an egoistic POV, it's good for the C's that a historically good franchise is stuck in this situation; the longer the Colangelos stay the better for us.

Hinkie was the GM for only three seasons being hired after the 2013 season so they only tanked three seasons. 

ONLY???

I believe that's two entire seasons longer than any other team has ever tanked in at least the modern history of sports and the number of teams who've tanked one entire season is a lot less than many people think.  And let's not forget that Hinkie didn't just tank seasons, he also tanked at least two and probably three offseasons where he literally only made deals to reduce the amount of immediate talent on his roster.  I'm not sure one team has ever tanked even a single offseason.

Mike

[Moranis]

@celticsclay

Nice post.

With hindsight, I don't like this trade for Philly. Not only because it is very likely that they will get less than they had hoped for, but mainly because there is a limit to how much you can compromise your present in search for future assets. Prolonging extreme tanking over four (and counting) seasons is counterproductive. MCW (and KJ) might not be great, but he would have been better than McConnell. They also lost in chemistry by trading him. Let alone further alienating their fans. Finally, note that both MCW and KJ were playing quite well before being traded.
In retrospect, the MCW + KJ trade made it clear that Hinkie intended to continue making high risk/high reward trades (starting with Jrue Holiday in 2013), and contributed to his demise.
Overall, I think that Philly the tanking factory made sense in the first two, maybe three seasons, but they would have been better off if they had stopped the extreme tanking in the summer of 2016 and got a couple of decent guards (granted Bayless got injured, but he wasn't a great option for PG to start with. And Simmons playing at PG in his first rookie year had tanking written all over it).
Even with a couple of better guards, they would still be a lottery team anyway, and it would have been better for developing their young talents. There wasn't much to lose by not tanking to the extreme this season. I don't think they will get anywhere, unless they accept they will have to go through an intermediary phase in their rebuilding being a ca. 30 win team (like LAL this season).
Speaking from an egoistic POV, it's good for the C's that a historically good franchise is stuck in this situation; the longer the Colangelos stay the better for us.

Hinkie was the GM for only three seasons being hired after the 2013 season so they only tanked three seasons. 

ONLY???

I believe that's two entire seasons longer than any other team has ever tanked in at least the modern history of sports and the number of teams who've tanked one entire season is a lot less than many people think.  And let's not forget that Hinkie didn't just tank seasons, he also tanked at least two and probably three offseasons where he literally only made deals to reduce the amount of immediate talent on his roster.  I'm not sure one team has ever tanked even a single offseason.

Mike

The Thunder tanked for 2.5 years including 3 off seasons.